One of the enduring arguments against immigration reform is that it's unaffordable. In a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll released Sunday, 61% said granting legal status to undocumented immigrants would be a drain on government services. Other surveys show substantial numbers of Americans believe that immigrants come to the U.S. primarily to seek safety-net benefits.

Given these sentiments, it's no surprise that the immigration bill pending in the Senate this week takes a hard line on benefits for the 11 million or so undocumented workers in this country. They would have to wait 10 years before they can get green cards. During that time, they would get no federal, means-tested benefits. No Medicaid. No food stamps. No ObamaCare subsidies.

Nothing.

But that isn't good enough for some Republican opponents of the immigration overhaul plan. To demonstrate their toughness, they're expected to offer a raft of amendments. One would deny access to two major tax breaks — the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit (EITC) — during those 10 years. Another would extend the ban on ObamaCare subsidies (to buy individual health insurance policies on state exchanges) for five years beyond that decade, or until an immigrant receives citizenship.

There comes a time when beating up on immigrants, even those who came here illegally, is counterproductive. And this is one of them.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the immigration legislation, as it stands, would increase economic growth while pushing the deficit down by $175 billion over the next 10 years. Perhaps even more tellingly, it would reduce the deficit by $700 billion in the second 10 years, when some of the 11 million would begin to qualify for benefits.

These numbers show the other side of the immigrant equation. Immigrants certainly do strain local schools and hospitals, and tough border enforcement is expensive. But these expenses would be more than offset by the economic growth and increased tax receipts associated with immigration.

In this light, the amendments come off as punitive. The child tax credit and the EITC are not benefits like Medicaid, but rather instances of social engineering that Congress has written into the tax code. You can't get them unless you work and file tax returns. Congress shouldn't overlay the already convoluted tax code with a discriminatory policy determining which taxpayers can play the game and which can't.

Similarly, immigrants shouldn't have to wait as long as 15 years before being able to qualify for assistance in purchasing private health coverage that they are required to have. Ten years is long enough to make a point.

Society benefits when fewer uninsured people are walking around sick or using hospital emergency rooms for primary care. And if the government is mandating that all uninsured individuals buy coverage, why give subsidies to some lower income people and force others to pay full freight?

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.